I've been doing some research and reading on the pros and cons of circumcision in sexual function. The only study I see in favor of circumcision, & the notion which I was curious of, was the elongation of intercourse in circumsized men vs. uncircumsized men. There was a study confirming this, But the difference was about 6.2 minutes of intercourse until ejaculation, vs 6.6 minutes, not the large difference I might have thought.
I was suprised to see more studies cite increased satisfaction in females with the 'uncircumsized' male due to the sleeved retraction & a decrease in vaginal dryness...
Anyway, I was curious what some women's actual opinions were... I should say experiences, not opinions, as I'm not interested in 'aesthetic' opinions, or opinions from anyone who hasn't had both normal, & circumsized partners.
2007-09-05 06:05:03 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health ➔ Men's Health
Personally, having tried both, I prefer uncircumcised, for handjobs, oral and intercourse.
Easier to masturbate an uncircumcised man - no need for lube and easy to move the foreskin.
Oral - the head of the penis is softer and nicer to suck, and they tend to be more sensitvie to touch so you don't have to apply as much pressure. Plus, I love pulling the foreskin up and flicking it with my tongue etc - there is just so much more that is fun to do. You can do everything you can do to a circumcised penis plus loads more that is fun and gives more variety.
Intercourse - I like the way there is less friction at the entrance of the vagina where it can get sore, but as much stimulation inside with an uncircumcised penis. It is true you dry out less with an uncircumcised penis, and somehow it just feels better, more natural and more arousing. Plus, I have found the increased sensitivity sometimes means uncircumcised men 'pump' less hard - it is more gentle and somehow better.
2007-09-05 06:19:16 · answer #1 · answered by mayflower25 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I have had both. You mentione dyou are not interested int he aesthetics of it, so I won't get into that. BUT, in my opinion, my partner that was not circumsized did not last nearly as long as a circumsized man. The physical pleasure was no different. Other than the fact that the non-circumsized man tending to ejactulate prior to me so that was always a bummer. It could have just been his greedy ways, too. And honestly, when they are erect, it is hard to tell whether or not they are circumsized other than that little spot where the skin kind of bulges and the tip tilts a tiny bit where the skin pulls it. I think that is natures way of rubbing a womans' G Spot, but honestly I couldn't tell if it did. He was on the smaller side, too...
2007-09-05 06:21:59 · answer #2 · answered by Starlyn 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I answered this in the other section. On average they found circumcised men last 10 seconds longer - not really much to make a difference. And if the sex is worse, which it quite possibly is, then who wants another 10 seconds? Plus circumcised men seem to have higher rates of I think it was impotence. Most Muslims, Jews and women in the USA are used to circumcised and prefer that; the rest of the world is NORMAL!
2016-05-17 09:29:50 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I haven't had both (only uncircumcised - but if it's not broken why try something that could be?) but I've read a lot about it too, and all the evidence seems to be in favour of uncircumcised being better for women.
In the USA, many women prefer the look of circumcised, and are used to it, and say they prefer that, without really understanding.
Most women say they can't feel a significant difference when it's inside them, but based on information like that at http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com I think it's possible there could be some side effects of circumcision that aren't immediately noticed.
2007-09-05 15:36:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
My husband is uncircumsized, and I think sex is actually more enjoyable and interesting with an uncircumsized male.
I would also like to add that I think the circumcision process somehow detracts from a penis' full ability to enlarge as much as an uncircumsized penis. The foreskin is capable of holding a lot of blodd, which causes the erection. So, if you cut that part off (as during circumcision), then that capacity for full enlargement is lost.
2007-09-05 06:12:48 · answer #5 · answered by happymama 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
it was several years untill i was with a uncirc guy. perhaps our age as they all seemed to have it done (am in my 30's), as i have only know 2 uncirc guys so far (not telling out of how many!)
i did find it strange as i just hadnt known one before. didnt like it iin my mouth at first. but as to intercourse, it felt the same.
am looking foward to getting to know how to play with an uncirc guy soon ;)
2007-09-05 11:33:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Essentially (for me) the experience has been the same. I do not prefer one over the other.
I think the uncircumsized looks better. But, feeling wise <- I have no preference.
2007-09-05 06:09:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Intercourse is no different with a circumcised man or an uncircumcised man. Most women prefer a man to be circumcised for oral sex though.
2007-09-05 06:08:21 · answer #8 · answered by 1sleepymama 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Agree with the other girl's- feels the same!
2007-09-05 06:12:47 · answer #9 · answered by GEEGEE 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Are you English, because I noticed you don't refer to circumcized as normal. If so, in America, they consider circumcision to be more normal, because it's done so often.
2007-09-05 06:24:06 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋